<p>Hi, so I'm a clueless pre-law student, looking for a little insight into the work of litigators. I've spoken with many transactional lawyers at the time when I was I thought I was heading towards that way (for various reasons), but since then I feel as though I may be more interested in working on the "other side." However, I honestly know absolutely nothing about litigation and what it takes to succeed in that area. And for one thing, I'm not sure that I fit the typical litigator moldIm not the litigious type who really participates in activities like debate club or mock trial. Is that background a requisite for a good litigator? Again, as I said, Im clueless so any help and advice would be much appreciated.</p>
<p>bump, anyone?</p>
<p>I’ve been a litigator for 10 years now. </p>
<p>Note that if you are an associate in the commercial litigation department of a Big Law Firm, you can expect to be a glorified secretary most of the time.</p>
<p>That said, I think that a lot of the stereotypes are true. Litigators regularly come into conflict with other people; get yelled at by judges; get accused of improper behavior; etc. Even if you have an argumentative personality, it can be rather stressful.</p>
<p>My father was a litigator too. He told me that a litigator must have thick skin, and I think he is probably right.</p>
<p>Can you be a little more specific about what sort of litigation work you had in mind?</p>
<p>Litigation is both a skill and a talent. Some cases can be litigated in short period of time and require less preparation. Other cases may be litigated over several days and require extensive preparation for trial. Most litigators are good at paying attention to details and have good memories. They also understand the importance of presentation of the theory underlying their positions. Most law schools do a good job of preparing law students to be litigators. </p>
<p>Litigation can be very stressful and unrewarding. The pressure to win (however winning is defined) can be extreme depending on the case. (In some cases, the attorney will not get paid if he or she loses). When an attorney wins a case, the client may be grateful but may also believe he or she was right all along and is disgruntled that he or she had to go through the expense of paying a lawyer and fighting a case in court. If the attorney loses the case, it may be because the client is at fault but the client blames the attorney rather than admitting fault. In short, litigation can be exciting because an attorney is dealing with an unknown result, but it is not for people who cannot handle a lot of stress and rejection along with the success.</p>
<p>Thanks for the information, guys. Perhaps you could fill me in a bit more on the different areas of litigation? As you’ve mentioned, BIGLAW litigation, at least at the associate level, seems to be dreary work. Even partners at large law firms rarely practice in court (from what I understand). I’m contemplating the idea of working in the gov’t, perhaps through the DOJ (with or without the honors program) and moving on towards the AUSA or the AG , keeping in mind the possibility of lateraling into the private sector. </p>
<p>The type of litigation I would be interested in aside from gov’t work would be appellate, though from what I understand, this isn’t an area you can really focus on straight out of law school–you need COA clerkships and prior experience as a general litigator, and then you may be “invited” to work on appellate cases. To have a greater shot at arguing these types of cases, you should find a niche like tax law or something, with the hope that when your case goes to appeal, you can continue on with the required work (correct me if I’m wrong that having a niche would be an advantage in obtaining appellate work and its likelihood) </p>
<p>Anyways, these are all lofty and naive notions that a typical 0L would have–similar to all those kids saying, “Oh I want to be a SCOTUS clerk/justice or practice ‘international law’/conlaw”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know much about government work, except that AUSA positions are extremely competitive. The AUSAs I have known have all seemed pretty happy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know much about appellate work either, but it strikes me that there are different kinds of appellate work. For example, I would guess that it’s pretty easy in most states to get appellate work representing indigent criminal defendants. </p>
<p>But besides that, I suspect it’s not so easy to find people willing to pay you good money to do an appeal. </p>
<p>I think you are right though . . . if you have represented a client at the trial level and lost; and you have a good relationship; and you specialize in the practice area at issue; they will probably be a lot more willing to pay you to do an appeal.</p>
<p>In my opinion, if you are a litigator in private practice, the main thing you need to think about is how you will get clients. If you have clients, you will probably end up doing all kinds of interesting work for them. Because if they are happy with you as an attorney, they will call you up and offer you work. It will be up to you to say “that’s not my practice area” or “I can help you for X dollars”</p>
<p>On the other hand, if you don’t have clients, you will either (a) starve; or (b) work for an attorney who has clients. In the latter case, it’s pretty likely that your boss will keep the more interesting work for himself or herself, and give you the less interesting work.</p>
<p>Just my humble opinion.</p>
<p>thanks, lskinner, do you mind telling me your background or what you specialize in?</p>
<p>I went to a top rated law school, worked for a few years at BIGLAW, quit and started my own practice, and do mainly employment law.</p>